In which case Google's investment and finance arm should be making tons of money. Not as in the "Google Finance" service, but the bunch who are investing Google's spare cash.
Lisp is very powerful. So it is a good language for all the code that you write.
However I don't use Lisp. I actually prefer stuff like Perl. Why? Because Perl is good for all the code you don't have to write! aka CPAN.
All that code in CPAN that you don't write, is code that you don't have to document, and typically don't have to debug and fix.
Most programmers in the world aren't really writing code where most of the lines of code are "new", revolutionary or innovative. You might write a few innovative things here and there, but the rest? Don't reinvent the wheel - use good libraries/modules.
In areas where nobody else in the world has ever done what you are doing, then it makes sense to use stuff like Lisp or whatever super powerful language that some genius has come up with.
Otherwise if you need to parse and build DHCP packets, perl/CPAN has modules for that. If you need to parse and build a webpage and post a webform, perl/CPAN has modules for that. Talk to DB servers, handle SNMP, SMTP over TLS, ssh, write Excel files, create images, etc they're all on CPAN.
Hey genius, if they can't find another job, or dislike the other jobs then getting rid of these sort of jobs won't help them will it?
If they really have no skills and qualification for other jobs they should be thankful that they're not an ugly girl and qualify for these easy and relatively high paying jobs (pays more than McD right?).
When opportunity knocks too many women just complain about the noise.
It's not sarcasm though. It's a claim that's backed by many scientific and medical studies.
A reason why some people don't get it is they don't fully realize they will eventually die. They "know" it, but they don't really know it all the way.
One problem is if they make decisions as if they would live forever. So you have these people putting up with options that they don't like, to live longer, then they get cancer. And they're so surprised... If it's not in your genes to live in good health till 90 (check your blood relatives) and die of pneumonia or something, you are likely to get something nasty when you prolong your life past your "best by date"- dementia, cancer, go blind. It's fine to do so you have a good reason to want to try to prolong your life (live to see your favourite great grandchildren grow up). But it has to be better than "I don't want to die", because you will die.
Even many scientists/researchers make a similar mistake. For instance when they calculate the economic cost of smoking to society. It is true more smokers die of something expensive earlier in their life. But if you don't smoke and so live longer past your retirement age, don't contribute significantly to society (economically or otherwise), and still end up going for one or more expensive treatments in hospitals before eventually dying, you're a greater cost to society than the average smoker that dies early after their retirement- especially if the smoker is also paying very high tobacco taxes (in some countries the taxes are very high). FWIW I'm a nonsmoker.
Same for many of those game theory and "antigambling" stuff. Often their assumption is that the participants aren't going to die. Whereas if they took that into account, some (not all!) of the things people do start to make more sense. For example if you are uneducated, very poor, with no great connections and your goal is to be as rich as a big lottery winner, working much harder isn't that much more likely to do it, than buying a lottery ticket, when taking into account the personal cost of working harder and that you will eventually die. Social mobility in many countries isn't very high.
Research into prolonging quality life is good, but always remember you will die eventually.
And be thankful for that! If it were impossible for you to die, what will you do by yourself for eternity when the last stars in the universe finally burn out? If people really had immortal imperfect souls, they would end up in a hell one way or another, if they weren't "fixed" somehow.
It won't help (unless their roofs are already painted black or close to black).
Otherwise it would get hotter than before. Solar cells absorb sunlight and convert about 25% to electricity. Much of the other 75% becomes heat (only some of it is reflected back to the sky). So if their roofs were not black and were a lighter colour and reflecting more light to the sky, then installing solar panels would make things hotter.
You can use the 25% for air-conditioning, that makes the houses cooler, but the heat is just transferred outside. So it is unlikely to make the streets cooler unless the streets are shaded and cooled too...
Re:Big shoutout to Tridge and the whole Samba team
on
Samba 4 Enters Beta
·
· Score: 2
The Commission ruled in 2004 that Microsoft (MSFT.O) must provide interconnection information letting rival server companies operate as smoothly with Microsoft Windows desktop machines as Microsoft's own server software.
The deal signed in the United States by the non-profit Protocol Freedom Information Foundation was focused on helping Samba, a non-profit maker of free, open source server software.
"The agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that need to interoperate with Windows", said Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba.
If you can make it cheap enough, you'll need to put many groups of quantum "dots" on the bill. Because each time you check a group of them on the note, you can no longer check that same group again, you'll have to move to an unchecked group.
That's about the only way I can see that makes it viable- if it's cheap and you use very many of the quantum stuff per note. Otherwise you will not be able to check the notes frequently enough to make it a danger to the counterfeiter.
In addition to a unique serial number on each bank note (these notes are actually more like cheques, since a verification step with the bank is required for each transaction),
If people have to verify with a bank all the time, it's no longer cash. If people very rarely verify with the bank, it means it still can be counterfeited.
In the real world, real notes being provably unique does not prevent them from being counterfeited.
If you want to prevent money from being counterfeited you need to come up with a system so that people can check the presented note/coin easily for themselves.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis.
Where in the Bible did he say that? He had two different genealogies too - so from what I see they were written by those who wrote the Gospels, you may think whatever they wrote is 100% perfect, I knowing the fallibility of humans don't (but based on the 4 gospels and other stuff I can believe that certain things are likely to have happened). Luke probably recorded the maternal line. While the rest probably recorded the paternal line.
This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.
You claiming that particular interpretation doesn't make it the true one. That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".
Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real.
Ask the saved crucified thief/robber that. I don't think they bothered discussing Jesus's genealogy and Adam. I think it's not that easy to breathe much less speak when you're crucified and hanging from a cross.
The good news Christians were commanded to preach might not be that clear cut, but it sure isn't "The world was created 6000 years ago". If you think it is, then you're a heretic.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis. Where in the Bible did he say that? He had two different genealogies too - they were written by those who wrote the Gospels. Luke probably recorded the maternal line. While the rest probably recorded the paternal line. <quote>This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.</quote> You claiming that particular interpretation doesn't make it so. That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't". <quote>Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real. </quote> Ask the saved crucified thief/robber that. I don't think they bothered discussing Jesus's genealogy and Adam. I think it's not that easy to breathe much less speak when you're crucified and hanging from a cross.
The good news Christians were commanded to preach might not be that clear cut, but it sure isn't "The world was created 6000 years ago". If you think it is, then you're a heretic.
Even an idiot like me can make lots of money if the exchange keeps rolling back my biggest mistakes.
Call me cynical but all that HFT, fancy math and fancy systems (computer and financial) are just a "magician's smoke and mirrors" to disguise what is actually happening: the transfer of money from the nonfavoured to the favoured.
While I believe God created everything, from the observable evidence the universe and world is a lot older than 6000 years. Many stars and celestial objects are further than 6000 years away.
Yes God could have created a many billion year old universe 6000 years ago or 5 seconds ago. But I see no benefit of arguing from that point of view. Creationism is not a core/mandatory part of Christianity and anyone who treats it as it is is a heretic. And Christians who go on and on about Creationism are distracting and even detracting from what Jesus cares and taught about. The Good News that Christians were commanded to spread certainly wasn't that the world was created 6000 years ago!
From what I see Jesus's normal style of creating things involved participation from others. Turning water to wine involved servants pouring water into jars. Feeding the thousands involved someone providing the bread and fish. Did Jesus really need water in the jars to fill them with wine? So why did he do things that way? He seems to like to get others involved. Which actually seems more consistent and makes more sense. An omnipotent God who didn't want others involved would have created a rather different universe. But instead we have this rather strange and peculiar universe where scientists still have difficulty explaining the very first observation they make (self/consciousness). That there is anything at all in the first place is also remarkable.
What I do also wonder is did the wine, bread and fish that Jesus created have age and history?:)
This ring began to glow about a year after the supernova explosion, when the light from the explosion reached it. Hence we know that the diameter of the ring is about two light years, and by measuring its angular diameter in the sky, the distance to the supernova was determined to be approximately 169,000 light years.
Unless somehow the speed of light is magnitudes different at that part of the universe AND the other measurement methods are wrong.
Of course in theory God could have created the Universe 6000 years ago. Or even yesterday. But from what we observe of the universe, it is much older than that. In the same way a scientist can create a universe simulation that's billions of years old from the perspective of the stuff in the simulation but 5 minutes old from the perspective of the scientist.
There is not much point trying to figure out how old the universe is from the perspective of outside the universe.
FWIW I'm a Christian and in my opinion Christians who get too obsessed with creationism are actually getting close to heresy. To be a Christian, believing and following Jesus is core/mandatory. The thief/robber who was crucified along with Jesus certainly didn't have to do or believe in much else to be saved. Same goes for the others whose sins Jesus forgave. Therefore creationism (and many of the other things Christians foolishly fixate on) is not core. So any Christian claiming that it's a mandatory/core part of Christianity, would be spreading heresy. And distracting people from the things Jesus cared/taught about.
Not just that. The speed of light is slow. Many of the stars and galaxies we see are further than 6000 light years away. That is assuming the Cepheid and other methods actually work (which is likely).
This ring began to glow about a year after the supernova explosion, when the light from the explosion reached it. Hence we know that the diameter of the ring is about two light years, and by measuring its angular diameter in the sky, the distance to the supernova was determined to be approximately 169,000 light years.
In a democracy a higher average is very important in the long run. As it means the voters won't be as stupid.
Also a high average means more of the population will be remain competitive for a longer time against the cheap lower educated people in other countries, and also the hard working machines that are increasingly getting smarter.
Yes you need geniuses. But you don't need that many, and it's easier to move geniuses to your country than to "move" 60% of your population once they get "stuck".
BTW even that study seems stupid to me, since they just tested 3 positions and claim 135 is the best. Where's their proof that 180 or even 190 isn't better?
Just shows how dismal the science of ergonomics is.
Sitting is only awful because most idiot furniture makers and ergonomics "experts" haven't made decent office chairs even though chairs were invented thousands of years ago.
Sure if you lie down and don't move for long you get bed sores, but there's no real problem if you recline for a while then get up and walk (or even run) about every now and then. I bet that's better for you than standing or walking the whole day.
Maybe the very expensive office chairs are OK, but it's ridiculous how uncompetitive and crap the furniture/chair industry is.
Maybe it's a replacement for the space shuttle - which was one of the very few space vehicles that could go into orbit, and come down while carrying significant stuff (or even carry down something it didn't take up).
There are rules to war. There were plenty of rules that were mostly followed by both sides in WW2.
If you break the rules, more of them may fight you to the death than surrender. For example there is no point surrendering if you are breaking the rules and killing prisoners that surrender. Then even if you eventually win, it would cost you a lot more.
You want to wage a war where the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight you to the bitter end.
Oh yeah, with some luck (the right yeasts in the air) you might be able to drown your sorrows with an alcoholic beverage too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_wine
Slashdot Mirror
In which case Google's investment and finance arm should be making tons of money. Not as in the "Google Finance" service, but the bunch who are investing Google's spare cash.
Lisp is very powerful. So it is a good language for all the code that you write.
However I don't use Lisp. I actually prefer stuff like Perl. Why? Because Perl is good for all the code you don't have to write! aka CPAN.
All that code in CPAN that you don't write, is code that you don't have to document, and typically don't have to debug and fix.
Most programmers in the world aren't really writing code where most of the lines of code are "new", revolutionary or innovative. You might write a few innovative things here and there, but the rest? Don't reinvent the wheel - use good libraries/modules.
In areas where nobody else in the world has ever done what you are doing, then it makes sense to use stuff like Lisp or whatever super powerful language that some genius has come up with.
Otherwise if you need to parse and build DHCP packets, perl/CPAN has modules for that. If you need to parse and build a webpage and post a webform, perl/CPAN has modules for that. Talk to DB servers, handle SNMP, SMTP over TLS, ssh, write Excel files, create images, etc they're all on CPAN.
Hey genius, if they can't find another job, or dislike the other jobs then getting rid of these sort of jobs won't help them will it?
If they really have no skills and qualification for other jobs they should be thankful that they're not an ugly girl and qualify for these easy and relatively high paying jobs (pays more than McD right?).
When opportunity knocks too many women just complain about the noise.
It's not sarcasm though. It's a claim that's backed by many scientific and medical studies.
A reason why some people don't get it is they don't fully realize they will eventually die. They "know" it, but they don't really know it all the way.
One problem is if they make decisions as if they would live forever. So you have these people putting up with options that they don't like, to live longer, then they get cancer. And they're so surprised... If it's not in your genes to live in good health till 90 (check your blood relatives) and die of pneumonia or something, you are likely to get something nasty when you prolong your life past your "best by date"- dementia, cancer, go blind. It's fine to do so you have a good reason to want to try to prolong your life (live to see your favourite great grandchildren grow up). But it has to be better than "I don't want to die", because you will die.
Even many scientists/researchers make a similar mistake. For instance when they calculate the economic cost of smoking to society. It is true more smokers die of something expensive earlier in their life.
But if you don't smoke and so live longer past your retirement age, don't contribute significantly to society (economically or otherwise), and still end up going for one or more expensive treatments in hospitals before eventually dying, you're a greater cost to society than the average smoker that dies early after their retirement- especially if the smoker is also paying very high tobacco taxes (in some countries the taxes are very high). FWIW I'm a nonsmoker.
Same for many of those game theory and "antigambling" stuff. Often their assumption is that the participants aren't going to die. Whereas if they took that into account, some (not all!) of the things people do start to make more sense. For example if you are uneducated, very poor, with no great connections and your goal is to be as rich as a big lottery winner, working much harder isn't that much more likely to do it, than buying a lottery ticket, when taking into account the personal cost of working harder and that you will eventually die. Social mobility in many countries isn't very high.
Research into prolonging quality life is good, but always remember you will die eventually.
And be thankful for that! If it were impossible for you to die, what will you do by yourself for eternity when the last stars in the universe finally burn out? If people really had immortal imperfect souls, they would end up in a hell one way or another, if they weren't "fixed" somehow.
The article says other sources of caffeine had no effect.
I bet if people drink lots of Coca Cola everyday the odds of them getting Alzheimer's go way down. The higher the dose the stronger the effect.
Even reduces the odds of dying of cancer.
It won't help (unless their roofs are already painted black or close to black).
Otherwise it would get hotter than before. Solar cells absorb sunlight and convert about 25% to electricity. Much of the other 75% becomes heat (only some of it is reflected back to the sky). So if their roofs were not black and were a lighter colour and reflecting more light to the sky, then installing solar panels would make things hotter.
You can use the 25% for air-conditioning, that makes the houses cooler, but the heat is just transferred outside. So it is unlikely to make the streets cooler unless the streets are shaded and cooled too...
It had more to do with the EU forcing Microsoft to do it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/20/us-microsoft-samba-eu-idUSBRU00620820071220
The Commission ruled in 2004 that Microsoft (MSFT.O) must provide interconnection information letting rival server companies operate as smoothly with Microsoft Windows desktop machines as Microsoft's own server software.
The deal signed in the United States by the non-profit Protocol Freedom Information Foundation was focused on helping Samba, a non-profit maker of free, open source server software.
"The agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that need to interoperate with Windows", said Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba.
Oh yeah. If you happen to use the same password on other sites. Change the passwords on the OTHER sites.
Don't bother doing that with LinkedIn. Treat the account as if the password is not a secret and cannot be a secret, until LinkedIn fixes stuff.
If the hackers have great control of the site, just logging in to the site could give them access to your password _plaintext_.
So use different passwords for different sites.
If you can make it cheap enough, you'll need to put many groups of quantum "dots" on the bill. Because each time you check a group of them on the note, you can no longer check that same group again, you'll have to move to an unchecked group.
That's about the only way I can see that makes it viable- if it's cheap and you use very many of the quantum stuff per note. Otherwise you will not be able to check the notes frequently enough to make it a danger to the counterfeiter.
Especially since it's a stupid idea.
Quote wiki:
In addition to a unique serial number on each bank note (these notes are actually more like cheques, since a verification step with the bank is required for each transaction),
If people have to verify with a bank all the time, it's no longer cash. If people very rarely verify with the bank, it means it still can be counterfeited.
In the real world, real notes being provably unique does not prevent them from being counterfeited.
If you want to prevent money from being counterfeited you need to come up with a system so that people can check the presented note/coin easily for themselves.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis.
Where in the Bible did he say that? He had two different genealogies too - so from what I see they were written by those who wrote the Gospels, you may think whatever they wrote is 100% perfect, I knowing the fallibility of humans don't (but based on the 4 gospels and other stuff I can believe that certain things are likely to have happened). Luke probably recorded the maternal line. While the rest probably recorded the paternal line.
This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.
You claiming that particular interpretation doesn't make it the true one. That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".
Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real.
Ask the saved crucified thief/robber that. I don't think they bothered discussing Jesus's genealogy and Adam. I think it's not that easy to breathe much less speak when you're crucified and hanging from a cross.
The good news Christians were commanded to preach might not be that clear cut, but it sure isn't "The world was created 6000 years ago". If you think it is, then you're a heretic.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis.
Where in the Bible did he say that? He had two different genealogies too - they were written by those who wrote the Gospels. Luke probably recorded the maternal line. While the rest probably recorded the paternal line.
<quote>This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.</quote>
You claiming that particular interpretation doesn't make it so. That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".
<quote>Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real. </quote>
Ask the saved crucified thief/robber that. I don't think they bothered discussing Jesus's genealogy and Adam. I think it's not that easy to breathe much less speak when you're crucified and hanging from a cross.
The good news Christians were commanded to preach might not be that clear cut, but it sure isn't "The world was created 6000 years ago". If you think it is, then you're a heretic.
FWIW Japan signed but did not ratify the Geneva Convention.
Which is why I don't have much sympathy for them whenever they whine about being nuked twice.
Fight like that, don't be surprised if you get nuked.
The problems I have with HFT are:
1) At least at one point of time it was (is?) a front running scam - favoured HFT traders got to front-run others ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html )
2) When favoured HFT players screw up, the exchange rolls back their trades: http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/07/markets/explaining_wall_street_turmoil/
Even an idiot like me can make lots of money if the exchange keeps rolling back my biggest mistakes.
Call me cynical but all that HFT, fancy math and fancy systems (computer and financial) are just a "magician's smoke and mirrors" to disguise what is actually happening: the transfer of money from the nonfavoured to the favoured.
While I believe God created everything, from the observable evidence the universe and world is a lot older than 6000 years. Many stars and celestial objects are further than 6000 years away.
:)
Yes God could have created a many billion year old universe 6000 years ago or 5 seconds ago. But I see no benefit of arguing from that point of view. Creationism is not a core/mandatory part of Christianity and anyone who treats it as it is is a heretic. And Christians who go on and on about Creationism are distracting and even detracting from what Jesus cares and taught about. The Good News that Christians were commanded to spread certainly wasn't that the world was created 6000 years ago!
From what I see Jesus's normal style of creating things involved participation from others. Turning water to wine involved servants pouring water into jars. Feeding the thousands involved someone providing the bread and fish. Did Jesus really need water in the jars to fill them with wine? So why did he do things that way? He seems to like to get others involved. Which actually seems more consistent and makes more sense. An omnipotent God who didn't want others involved would have created a rather different universe. But instead we have this rather strange and peculiar universe where scientists still have difficulty explaining the very first observation they make (self/consciousness). That there is anything at all in the first place is also remarkable.
What I do also wonder is did the wine, bread and fish that Jesus created have age and history?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html
This ring began to glow about a year after the supernova explosion, when the light from the explosion reached it. Hence we know that the diameter of the ring is about two light years, and by measuring its angular diameter in the sky, the distance to the supernova was determined to be approximately 169,000 light years.
Unless somehow the speed of light is magnitudes different at that part of the universe AND the other measurement methods are wrong.
Of course in theory God could have created the Universe 6000 years ago. Or even yesterday. But from what we observe of the universe, it is much older than that. In the same way a scientist can create a universe simulation that's billions of years old from the perspective of the stuff in the simulation but 5 minutes old from the perspective of the scientist.
There is not much point trying to figure out how old the universe is from the perspective of outside the universe.
FWIW I'm a Christian and in my opinion Christians who get too obsessed with creationism are actually getting close to heresy. To be a Christian, believing and following Jesus is core/mandatory. The thief/robber who was crucified along with Jesus certainly didn't have to do or believe in much else to be saved. Same goes for the others whose sins Jesus forgave. Therefore creationism (and many of the other things Christians foolishly fixate on) is not core. So any Christian claiming that it's a mandatory/core part of Christianity, would be spreading heresy. And distracting people from the things Jesus cared/taught about.
Not just that. The speed of light is slow. Many of the stars and galaxies we see are further than 6000 light years away. That is assuming the Cepheid and other methods actually work (which is likely).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html
This ring began to glow about a year after the supernova explosion, when the light from the explosion reached it. Hence we know that the diameter of the ring is about two light years, and by measuring its angular diameter in the sky, the distance to the supernova was determined to be approximately 169,000 light years.
In a democracy a higher average is very important in the long run. As it means the voters won't be as stupid.
Also a high average means more of the population will be remain competitive for a longer time against the cheap lower educated people in other countries, and also the hard working machines that are increasingly getting smarter.
Yes you need geniuses. But you don't need that many, and it's easier to move geniuses to your country than to "move" 60% of your population once they get "stuck".
BTW even that study seems stupid to me, since they just tested 3 positions and claim 135 is the best. Where's their proof that 180 or even 190 isn't better?
Just shows how dismal the science of ergonomics is.
Sitting is only awful because most idiot furniture makers and ergonomics "experts" haven't made decent office chairs even though chairs were invented thousands of years ago.
They've been telling people that sitting straight is better and making chairs like that when they've been wrong:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6187080.stm
Sure if you lie down and don't move for long you get bed sores, but there's no real problem if you recline for a while then get up and walk (or even run) about every now and then. I bet that's better for you than standing or walking the whole day.
Maybe the very expensive office chairs are OK, but it's ridiculous how uncompetitive and crap the furniture/chair industry is.
Maybe it's a replacement for the space shuttle - which was one of the very few space vehicles that could go into orbit, and come down while carrying significant stuff (or even carry down something it didn't take up).
There are rules to war. There were plenty of rules that were mostly followed by both sides in WW2.
If you break the rules, more of them may fight you to the death than surrender. For example there is no point surrendering if you are breaking the rules and killing prisoners that surrender. Then even if you eventually win, it would cost you a lot more.
You want to wage a war where the enemy is more likely to surrender than fight you to the bitter end.
Oh yeah, with some luck (the right yeasts in the air) you might be able to drown your sorrows with an alcoholic beverage too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_wine
So did the atoll have enough coconut trees? Judging from the photo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nikumaroro_Lagoon_Entrance_AKK.jpg ), there are worse places to be stranded at (e.g. desert and/or some very cold place for instance).